"But if we believe in free speech, we ought to keep control of the Internet away from foreign governments that value it far less than we do."
Oh. Sorry. Yeah, I forgot that for a moment. The last (and the current..) administration of the US of A certainly showed that they value freedom, and personal rights, on a really high level. Now - mod me troll for this all you want. I would always stand up against any single country claiming to be better (Yeah, it's not the country that claims the thing, it's just a lousy CS student). The whole idea is flawed. Who's right or wrong isn't a question that can be answered easily.
The current model just "solves" this issue by favoring one country, for historical reasons. That doesn't change the fact that the decisions (from the article) taken are hard and that they are made arbitrary.
The whole point of the story is: If someone needs to arbitrary decide about the internet, it should be us (We have the First Amendment! Hail us!).
I argue that an international body would be less biased and more "free". Isn't that what the constitution over there is about?